Jump to content

A Dark Fae's questions thread


CutieDarkFae

Recommended Posts

Those drawings are worth whatever you paid for them, if only for the "geek art" they are (at least).

 

I wouldn't worry too much about getting the videos as you aren't likely to get an actual Berkut kit (or project).  Using those drawings with a plans build of a Long-EZ is what I gather most do with them (if not framing or hanging on their walls).

Jon Matcho :busy:
Builder & Canard Zone Admin
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Next:  Resume building a Cozy Mark IV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got my tech drawing package today, wai! *bounces happily* Next up is to get the LongEZ plans printed out, and then find the space to build this (don't expect anything to happen soon on that front though :(

 

Are the Berkut Construction Videos available anywhere?

 

Seems like you are planning to modify a LongEZ.  What do you have in mind?

As detailed as the JG drawings are, they lack much vital information, but the package is great overall value. However, be aware that the drawings contain a few inconsistencies and errors.

If you find a source for the videos, please let us know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the LongEZ plans so that's where I can start.  I plan to reverse engineer what was done to turn a LongEZ into a Berkut, and incorporate as much of that as I can.  Additionally I want to bring the plane up to modern spec, fully electric (no hydraulics if I can avoid it), a nice data bus, as close to fly-by-wire as I can get, HUD, HOTAS, and so on.  A bit more storage space would be nice also.

 

Is there a centralised location for what the inconsistencies and errors in the drawings are?

 

Yes Jon, they are so pretty :)

 

Another question:  Why are we still manually switching fuel flow from between left and right fuel tanks?  Can't we do better now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plan to reverse engineer what was done to turn a LongEZ into a Berkut, and incorporate as much of that as I can.

"Berk-EZ" is the codeword... search the Internet for that to find others that have done the same.

 

Additionally I want to bring the plane up to modern spec, fully electric (no hydraulics if I can avoid it), a nice data bus...

The only hydraulics are the brakes, which I don't see replacing at all. Control surfaces are mechanical, which have the wonderful benefit of never running out of batteries :-)

 

Electric systems can be easier to wire these days, and you can definitely get your EFIS to talk with you avionics. http://verticalpower.com/products/

 

...as close to fly-by-wire as I can get...

Consider that the only thing you would gain here would be more complexity.

 

...HUD...

Good luck! Maybe in 10 years some product might happen. Maybe you'll design, build, and offer it!

 

...HOTAS, and so on.

HOTAS, like these somewhere down the bottom of this "web page": http://www.infinityaerospace.com/infgrip.htm

 

Or this one? http://tostenmanufacturing.com/product/military-style-grip-ms/

 

You didn't mention 'auto pilot', which is quite common.

 

A bit more storage space would be nice also.

Always, but if you fly solo you'll have the whole back seat as your "overhead compartment". Beyond that, maybe you want to build a Cozy-Berkut? Think about the flying that you will actually be doing 80+% of the time...

 

Why are we still manually switching fuel flow from between left and right fuel tanks?  Can't we do better now?

What do you consider better, pushing a button? I personally wouldn't want that for the same complexity reason mentioned above (you would desire a manual override anyway). Having dual tanks provides redundancy and safety features. For example, if your single tank sprung a leak in flight, your first wish would be for a manual control to switch to the other fuel tank (that you didn't have), but instead you're left with planning your emergency landing.

 

Maybe you want to catch the brewing electric flight wave? If so, then think of building smaller and lighter, forgetting about a 2nd passenger and more storage space.

Edited by Jon Matcho
Wrestling with quoting

Jon Matcho :busy:
Builder & Canard Zone Admin
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Next:  Resume building a Cozy Mark IV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Berk-EZ" is the codeword... search the Internet for that to find others that have done the same.

Thanks, I'll do that. I knew I wouldn't be the first person to think of this :)

 

The only hydraulics are the brakes, which I don't see replacing at all. Control surfaces are mechanical, which have the wonderful benefit of never running out of batteries :-)

Electric brakes are no good? I'll have to look into that. I'm pretty sure the Boeing 787 has electric brakes, I wonder what I can leach from that.

 

As an aside I shan't be using batteries, I intend to use supercapacitors instead. Almost the energy density of a good LiPo but you can drain them stupidly fast and all the way to 0 and they don't complain :)

 

Also should mains power die, the gear will automatically drop due to gravity and Ram Air Turbines will pop out also. Worst case is the EFIS dying and my Fly-by-Wire is gone, but in that case I can direct control the servos from the stick.

 

Actually, no, worst case is full failure of my power bus, nothing powers the servos. Is a dual fully redundant power bus enough?

 

Electric systems can be easier to wire these days, and you can definitely get your EFIS to talk with you avionics. http://verticalpower.com/products/

My data bus will make it even easier :) If I can't do full proper ARINC 664.7 I'll just fake it, the concepts aren't that hard.

 

Consider that the only thing you would gain here would be more complexity.

To a point, complexity I can live with. It will be distinct, discrete pockets of complexity. Each individual system will do one thing, and do it well. Coordinating all those systems is where the fun begins. Nothing that can't be conquered though :)

 

Good luck! Maybe in 10 years some product might happen. Maybe you'll design, build, and offer it!

If my crazy plans work out, yes :)

 

HOTAS, like these somewhere down the bottom of this "web page": http://www.infinityaerospace.com/infgrip.htm

 

Or this one? http://tostenmanufacturing.com/product/military-style-grip-ms/

No, more like this one. The trick will be getting someone to sell me a force feedback inceptor. There are people who make them, maybe sending them something on company letterhead would help, they don't seem to target individuals.

 

You didn't mention 'auto pilot', which is quite common.

Ooops, forgot that one, but it's an inherent part of my Fly-by-Wire hopes and the EFIS.

 

Always, but if you fly solo you'll have the whole back seat as your "overhead compartment". Beyond that, maybe you want to build a Cozy-Berkut? Think about the flying that you will actually be doing 80+% of the time...

What I see myself doing in this plane is myself and someone else hooning through the sky together, on our way to somewhere. A Cozy-Berkut sounds, wrong? Fat != Fast (or at least I can go faster if I'm not that wide)

 

What do you consider better, pushing a button? I personally wouldn't want that for the same complexity reason mentioned above (you would desire a manual override anyway). Having dual tanks provides redundancy and safety features. For example, if your single tank sprung a leak in flight, your first wish would be for a manual control to switch to the other fuel tank (that you didn't have), but instead you're left with planning your emergency landing.

OK, thanks. Dual tanks I get. Manual fuel shut offs I get. It was just manually choosing which tank to feed from that I didn't get. We have computers now. Surely the EFIS can detect a fuel leak (it knows how fast we're burning fuel, how fast we're pumping fuel out, or in, and it can monitor tank levels, it can detect that) and automatically initiate pumping all available fuel into the other tank then sealing the tank. And adjusting the flight controls to compensate for the weight shift.

 

Maybe you want to catch the brewing electric flight wave? If so, then think of building smaller and lighter, forgetting about a 2nd passenger and more storage space.

Electric flight is a nice idea, but batteries are way too large and heavy right now. It's definitely a space worth watching but for the long cross country trips I want (OZ is a big place!) Kero is a much better choice. The good news is that I won't have to run on fossil kero for long, we're getting good at brewing that stuff now :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutie, have you ever built anything? If so, what?

I've never built anything like this. Software I can do, but the carbon etc will require practice and experimentation. I'm not going to just jump into doing this, I like being alive :) I have a plan. Plane is step 3 of said plan. Step 2 is getting experience in carbon manufacture and engineering and is expected to last for about 2 years. I'm about a year away from achieving step 1. So I have about 3 years to work out how much of this dream is feasible, achievable, and practical. Still, if I don't dream big, I'll never get anywhere. It's one reason why I'm here asking questions after all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok that is an honest answer i appreciate but your questions/plans show a lack of experience and understanding for what is practical with a homebuilt airplane. Yes it's good to have a plan but a plan made with no practical experience is just dreaming.

 

You have to crawl before you can walk. Build a Long-ez or something to plans, get some practical experience. Or build a simple fly-by-wire mockup with a stick and one aileron.

 

It's funny, you can start a thread on the internet saying you want to build a starship shuttle-craft and a whole bunch of people will happily advise you how to do it. This sounds like one of those threads. :)

  • Like 1

-Kent
Cozy IV N13AM-750 hrs, Long-EZ-85 hrs and sold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, a distinct lack of experience indeed. It's one of the reasons why I'm not even attempting to design my own plane here. That would be asking just a bit too much, and as I said I value being alive :)

 

Fly-by-wire mock up is being planned currently, I should be buying parts in about a month. Just got to decide on which linear actuator I use. Then work out how to put a quadrature rotary encoder on it.

 

I understand that this appears to be pie-in-the-sky stuff, and it will continue to be so until I start posting serious progress with pictures and videos. I need to post proof that I can do this before I expect people to believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have about 3 years to work out how much of this dream is feasible, achievable, and practical. Still, if I don't dream big, I'll never get anywhere. It's one reason why I'm here asking questions after all :)

 

Cutie, do not be offended and try to take this as constructive criticism (which I often take as motivation fuel myself), but the daydream you describe is an absolute fantasy that requires no more than 3 minutes to determine it's unfeasible, unachievable, and impractical as-is.  Addressing all of your items is not worth anyone's time, as there is no concern that anything dangerous here could ever be built.

 

Try this instead... select just ONE item in your dream list (easiest, hardest, whatever) and make a case for that one item.  Throw it out for feedback and see what comes back.  If it stays on your list, do the same for the next ONE item.  After one or two of these you'll begin to know how to revise your own list.

 

We're all ears for anything to do with canard building and flying, but perhaps -- and I am not shooing you away -- consider the "New Technology" sub-forum at the Homebuilt Airplanes forum where "progressive" ideas may be thrown around more frequently and receive more feedback than here.

Jon Matcho :busy:
Builder & Canard Zone Admin
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Next:  Resume building a Cozy Mark IV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutie,

I flew with a HUD on an AH-1S Cobra Attack Helicopter and I have a HUD now on the B787. Sorry to burst your bubble but for the most part they're kind of just gee-whiz gimmicks. On the Cobra it was and is a necessary piece of kit because the mission was low level eyeballs outside the cockpit. On the 787 the only time it's of any real use is in a super low visibility takeoff.

 

In a Berk-Ez I'm sure a HUD would be an interesting conversation piece but not of any true value. Maybe if you were doing a lot of non-precision approaches that had complicated step-downs but soon most everything will be curved path RNAV approaches that you'll fly just like an ILS.

 

Pretty much the same with HOTAS as well. The Tosten grip or Infinity grip can be configured to transmit, squawk ident, change frequencies, adjust trim, lower the gear and extend the landing brake all while keeping your eyeballs outside the cockpit. But you know what - so can a regular Long Ez. You just have to know your aircraft and know where your individual switches are. Learn the blindfolded cockpit procedure and you'll have this.

 

It sounds as if you want to create a mini-tactical fighter - and that's ok. We all sort of want that. I will say that I like your ambition and the scope of your dreams. I wish you well with this project and hope you show us your progress.

Best of Luck,

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I too see the sheer depth of this project as daydreaming, I do not think it is anything that can't be successfully completed by the right person. If Cutie has experience with designing/programming electro-mechanical systems, which it seems like he may, there is no reason he couldn't make his plane fly by wire. It does leave the question of why someone would want to do that, but it should be able to be done. 

 

Just the basic system for actuating the controls based on stick/pedal inputs shouldn't be too difficult. Adding auto wing leveling and even pitch/yaw hold shouldn't be too hard for that system either. My concerns for that system would be how to connect it to your GPS/etc for a good autopilot. 

 

Also one needs to consider redundancy and whether that will make a fly by wire version heavier. You may still have mechanical connections as back ups. 

 

I'm not sure why you hope to get out of the conversion to fly by wire, but the most I would expect would be a fun project to work on (shouldn't be discounted as a perfectly good reason to do it), an interesting conversation piece that is heavier and doesn't fly as well as the original design, and possibly a resume builder for someone with a job in the right industries. 

 

My biggest concern is the idea for for capacitors instead of batteries. 

 

Good luck on the project Cutie. It will be fun to follow. I hope you continue to update us with your progress. You mentioned a 3 step plan. Would you mind detailing each step for those of us who are curious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, dream list item 1: HUD, see here. This certainly looks like the best and easiest HUD I can think of, what do others think?

That product will serve as a good barometer for the value of HUD. My money is on that company disappearing from existence in a few years, but that's just my opinion.

 

Avionics are one of the last things to worry about anyway, and since you'll have the option to purchase that gizmo down the road, what's next on the list now? Priorities (for me at least) would be the airframe and mechanical/control systems, and the WEIGHT that each decision costs me. The latest and greatest computer/avionics stuff is an always evolving moving target.

Jon Matcho :busy:
Builder & Canard Zone Admin
Now:  Rebuilding Quickie Tri-Q200 N479E
Next:  Resume building a Cozy Mark IV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, a distinct lack of experience indeed. It's one of the reasons why I'm not even attempting to design my own plane here. That would be asking just a bit too much, and as I said I value being alive :)

 

 

CutieDarkFae, perhaps you may not realize it quite yet,  but in attempting to convert/modify your LongEZ drawings to Berkut standard, you may indeed be attempting to design your own airplane. 

 

Building a Berkut from the JG drawings   ( I am not by any means attempting to discourage you from doing so)  will undoubtedly require a considerable amount of research and planning.  It has already been done. Yes.  Jon mentioned  the BerkEZ.  However, don't underestimate the amount of time, work, and research involved.  Just doing an accurate rendition of the Berkut fuselage in 2D CAD will be enough of a challenge even if you have a kit fuselage available for reference. Building a BerkEZ, I would venture to say, would involve much more than a rudimentary 12 inch stretch of the LongEZ fuselage.

 

Good luck on the project. As mentioned above, it will be fun to follow, so please continue to update us.  I too am curious to learn the details of your 3 Step plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your replies, I'll try to address everything covered, forgive me if I miss something please.

 

HUD: Yes, a HUD is a nice to have, and probably of limited additional usefulness, but I just really like the idea of having everything I need to know right in my field of view when I need it. Unfortunately there's too many problems with that sentence, like how does a computer know what I need to know and when I need to know it? But as was mentioned, Avionics is one of the last things I need to worry about, it was just one of the easier things to mention as I had an example available. I do hope that that company continues, AR glasses will only get better as time continues, as will portable computing. Moore's "Law" isn't dead yet :)

 

HOTAS: Those sticks would probably do. One of the problems I face with the Warthog ones is working what to assign to all those controls. If I can utilise them all then fine, if not then I'm better off without it as I don't need unused controls cluttering my stick. Everything right now is just options. When I have a better idea of exactly what I'm putting into my plane then I can start making these decisions.

 

FBW weight: Yes, weight will be an issue. If I were to go with mechanical linkages and make them all out of lovely Titanium the entire setup would weight, what, 2kg? If that? Right now that buys me 2 whole linear actuators :( *sigh* And I'm looking at needing 4 per wing currently. With the tech I can find currently, I fail to see how this could possibly be lighter, or cheaper than mechanical linkages. But I can't do 1/2 of what I'm dreaming with mechanical linkages so I'm going to have to live with the weight/complexity penalty, and minimise/manage the risks as best as I can.

 

Redundancy: Does anybody have redundant mechanical linkages? I'll have dual redundant power busses, dual redundant data busses. I'll only have a single linear actuator per control, but I'll have dual redundant sensors/controls for those, and my EFIS is planned to be FailSafe/FailSafe/FailOperation. In case of mains power failure (aka engine death) I want enough onboard power stored for full control and my EFIS for my max glide time from altitude. And in case of both mains power failure and onboard stored power failure the gear will drop and lock into place and Ram Air Turbines will drop out also which will give me more than enough power for control, but probably not the EFIS. This is when something like Xavion on an iPad comes into use :)

 

Capacitors instead of Batteries: Skier, why are you worried here? Supercaps are great :) Obviously some testing will be required to confirm that they are the correct choice and I may end up falling back to LiPo's, we'll see.

 

Oh, Skier: She :)

 

Avi and building this: Yes, getting the fuselage shape will be, interesting. No plans, and no kits any more :( It makes me wonder what it would cost to get a current Berkut laser scanned. The good news is that the costs for that are dropping all the time :)

 

Oh, what happened to the effort some years back to get the Berkut CAD'ified? The site hosting the links has died and nothing's been posted since the site was rezzed. There's a 1/3 scale CAD of the Berkut going for a couple hundred dollars, (here) but I'd need to know the accuracy before purchasing it. Also the license specifies I can't start churning out a kit which could be a nice option if this all works out nicely. And the liability lawyers don't eat me first.

 

OK, 3 step plan :)

1: Buy a house, with a 2 car garage minimum! Ideally without a central support pillar.

2: Pay off the house like crazy for a couple of years and use what little I have left over to practice my carbon techniques building funky cosplay outfits :) And possibly LARP armour. Ideally in this time I get things like infusion casting and mould making down. And practice my mechatronic skills :)

3: Now I have a house, some carbon skills (and ideally CAD skills) and the house paid off a bit, lessen the repayments and start building a plane :)

 

Obviously each step has a multitude of sub-steps but it's a general plan that I'm sticking to pretty well :)

 

I'm trying to find a nice CAD course locally, I may have to just live with online tutorials.

 

Wishes: I wish that Boron Nitride nano fibres would become easily available and cheap! Oh to build a plane out of those :) 90% the strength of carbon fibre, tough and abrasion resistant, and electrically insulating :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds good, Gal.

 

The Mike James 3D CAD was apparently for a model airplane. I've checked out the site, and visually compared the loft/contour lines with photographs of the real thing.

For what it's worth, it's a model, and far from accurate, in spite of the fact that he states he based his drawings on the factory ones. What I'm saying is that his drawings may be sufficient for an RC model, but perhaps lacking if scaled up full size.

 

I don't doubt he used the JG drawings. It only goes to show that developing an accurate fuselage from the JG drawings is not a simple task. 

If you've got the JG set of drawings, you already have more than what he had to work with.

It would appear that he only had Sheet One, the 3-View drawing.

 

Why spend the hi bucks to get a Berkut laser  scanned?   With a bit of detective work and a whole lot of research, it's possible

to arrive at an accurate fuselage outline and loft. You're going to be designing the airplane anyway, so aren't you more than likely going to end up with your own personal minor adjustments and changes? Besides, the molded Berkut shell, from what I'm told, was far from perfect.

 

Google "Draftsight" - it's a free 2D CAD from the French aviation company Dassault - it's pretty good.
3D? Well, I'm starting to use Rhino, but I'm finding there's a steep learning curve. However, from what little I've learned, it makes 2D, well, primitive.

 

Good luck. Keep us posted.

Edited by AVI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For CAD I'm seriously thinking of Autodesk's Fusion360 software, it looks nice, and at $300/year is rather cheap (if your sub dies you don't lose access to your models, you just can't change them any more) and with the free upgrade if bought before 15-Nov it looks VERY nice, as it also includes CAM software and is getting pretty good reviews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With the berkut io360, what's the length from nose tip to firewall?

 

I've got a CAD program, I've got shots of the 3 view on my computer, I just need to scale them now :)

 

The firewall is at FS125. The tip of the nose is at approximately FS-26.

It's common knowledge that the Berkut fuselage design was basically that of the LongEZ stretched 12 inches.

 

I'm confused. Which "tech package" did you receive?

You mentioned receiving a "tech package" in your initial post and confirmed in a subsequent post that you've got the JG drawings, but I'm

now not so sure.

Page One of the JG drawings consists of a 1:10 scale three-view overlayed with a grid displaying the fuselage stations, butt lines and water lines.

 

If you do not have the JG drawings, they're well worth the price. The cost is close to a grand for a complete set of Berkut drawings consisting of 100 sheets. However, unlike the LongEZ plans, these are not construction plans in the same sense, so there is "some research required" if your goal is to build a Berkut clone.

 

The full set of Berkut drawings is available from John Griffiths    john.griffiths1@verizon.net    Tell him that Alex, near Toronto, Ontario gave you the contact info.  It's a heavy package, so shipping to Oz might be a tad expensive.  If you don't have these drawings, you can still build a Berkut clone by modifying the LongEZ drawings. Either way, you're going to be designing your own aircraft. As previously mentioned, "Some research required."

 

BTW, which three-view drawing do you have? What's the source and size? Can you post an image?

I'd caution you about attempting to build from plans created by simply enlarging a tiny three-view drawing commonly found on the internet.

IMHO it would be more logical to create drawings based on the LongEZ plans which you implied are in your possession.

 

And lastly, which CAD program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CAD program is Fusion360 Ultimate.

 

I got JG's drawings, obviously I haven't studied them enough as I didn't see the 1/10 scale.  So now I just need to retake the photo's with a ruler in there as well and it should be so much easier than counting all those tiny little boxes.

 

Drawing this up in CAD is part of the 'research required' :)

 

I got the tiny 3 view from the internet a while back, and yes, that's why I got JG's package, much better to make things from :)  The source was the Berkut site from the WayBack machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I got JG's drawings, obviously I haven't studied them enough as I didn't see the 1/10 scale.  So now I just need to retake the photo's with a ruler in there as well and it should be so much easier than counting all those tiny little boxes.

 

 

 

Photos? You have images or a digitized version of the drawings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information